[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 108 (Thursday, June 29, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9404-S9410]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


 CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of 
conference on House Concurrent Resolution 67 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the concurrent 
     resolution (H. Con. Res. 67) setting forth the congressional 
     budget for the United States Government for fiscal years, 
     1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, having met, 
     after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and 
     do recommend to their respective Houses this report, signed 
     by a majority of the conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of June 26, 1995.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, that means that this is before us 
officially and formally at this point; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I think the Chair.
  Mr. President, as now printed, the Statement of Managers in the 
conference report on the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
year 1996 (H. Rept. 104-159) contains several technical and 
typographical errors. Under the rules of the Senate, the conference 
report is not amendable so I submit the following list for the 
information of Senators and other interested parties only.
  On page 40, in the table showing the aggregate and functional levels 
in the House resolution, the outlays in fiscal year 2000 for Function 
350: Agriculture should be 9.0.
  On page 48, the ``Conference Agreement--Discretionary Totals'' tables 
should end after the outlay line for ``Nondefense''. Following that 
line, the header ``CONFERENCE AGREEMENT--Mandatory Totals'' should be 
inserted.
  On Page 49, at the top of page, the header should be ``CONFERENCE 
AGREEMENT--MANDATORY TOTALS.''.
  On Page 51, in the second sentence of the first paragraph, the word 
``separated'' should read ``separate''.
  On Page 56, in the table ``Allocation of Spending Responsibility to 
House Committees'', the Discretionary action outlay subtotal for the 
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee should be ``-63''.
  On Page 94, at the end of the second sentence in the third full 
paragraph, ``in the Senate'' should be inserted.
  On Page 94, in the third sentence of the third full paragraph, 
``Senate Budget Committee is'' should be substituted for ``Budget 
Committees are''.
  On Page 94, in the first and second sentences of the fifth full 
paragraph, the phrase ``tax writing committees are'' should be ``Senate 
Finance Committee is''.
  On Page 95, in the first and second full paragraph, references to 
``205(e)'' should be to ``205(c)''.
  On Page 95, in the second full paragraph, references to ``204(a)'' 
should be to ``205(a)''.
  On Page 98, in the last sentence of the explanation on the IRS 
Allowance the phrase ``to this Congress'' should read ``in this 
Congress''.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from 
New Mexico for the mammoth task he is about to complete--to pass a 
resolution putting the United States on track to balance the Federal 
budget by 2002. The Foreign Relations Committee is committed to do its 
part to put the international affairs budget function on a trajectory 
for meeting the targets specified in the budget blueprint that 

[[Page S 9405]]
lies before us. That said, I respectfully request to ask my friend from 
New Mexico to engage in a colloquy to clarify for the Record the terms 
of the conference report on the budget resolution relating to the 
international affairs budget function.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will be delighted to enter into a colloquy with my 
good friend on this point.
  Mr. HELMS. The House resolution contains an agreement to restructure 
the various foreign affairs activities by consolidating AID, USIA, and 
ACDA into the Department of State. Is my understanding correct?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, that is correct.
  Mr. HELMS. It is my further understanding that the Senate budget 
resolution also assumed major restructuring of the U.S. foreign affairs 
apparatus, including support for the consolidation of ACDA, USIA, and 
AID into the Department of State and any cost savings which it 
generates. Is that correct?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
  Mr. HELMS. So, in other words, the House and Senate budget conference 
report accommodates the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
reorganization proposal to abolish the Agency for International 
Development, the United States Information Agency and the Arms Control 
and Disarmament Agency, and fold their essential functions and 
personnel into the Department of State, and when the Senate decides to 
abolish these agencies the budget resolution will support it. Is that 
correct?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank my distinguished friend from New Mexico for his 
support and look forward to celebrating his remarkable victory later 
today.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to Senator Simpson, 
from the great State of Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I have been here 16-plus years. There are 
a lot of people who do a lot of work in this place, but the senior 
Senator from New Mexico is, in my estimation, much like a true patriot. 
He practically has given his life to the budget and he has learned it, 
and I think we must respect him.
  My good colleague from Nebraska, who came here when I did, has 
dedicated a lot of his energy and time. But, ladies and gentlemen, this 
is it. Either we start now or we leave nothing --nothing--for people 
between 18 and 45, because when they are 63, the cupboard will be 
picked clean: Medicare broke in 7 years, disability insurance broke in 
2016, Social Security itself broke in the year 2031. Who is telling us 
that? Appointees of the President of the United States.
  So this is it. No more fun and games. No smoke and mirrors. Step up 
to the plate.
  Buy--the things are on me.
  I have heard many criticisms of this budget from the other side of 
the aisle, but even the harshest critics of the budget admit that its 
numbers are honest, indeed conservative, and there is no ``smoke and 
mirrors'' employed here to create an illusion of balancing the budget. 
To put it very simply, if we and future Congresses adhere to the 
requirements of this budget, we will get the job done.
  I will only take a short time to review where we are with respect to 
the economic future of this country. We currently have a national debt 
approaching $5 trillion. Early in the next century, the baby boom 
generation will begin to retire, and this will place untold strains on 
our working population. By the year 2013, under current law, the Social 
Security System will begin to experience a deficit, and we will have to 
cut benefits or raise payroll taxes to meet that challenge. Also under 
current law, by the year 2002, Medicare will be broke--flat broke.
  I have heard it said--even the President has said it--that 7 years' 
time is ``too short'' a time in which to force the budget into balance. 
I cannot understand this. Where in the world will we find the money to 
provide for the baby boomers' retirement and health costs if we 
continue to use up the Federal budget with ever-increasing interest 
payments? If we do not balance the budget shortly after the turn of the 
century, we will never do it.
  I have reviewed this budget conference report unusually carefully, 
even skeptically, because of the great importance that I attach to 
meeting this dire situation now, and meeting it properly. I have been 
greatly concerned about doing anything in the way of tax cuts that 
could undermine the objective of reaching a balanced budget.
  My colleagues well know that I joined with 11 other Republicans in 
signing a letter urging Senator Domenici and the conferees to uphold 
the Senate's CBO-certification provision. This would verify that we are 
on course to balancing the budget before permitting any tax decreases. 
I am greatly pleased that the certification mechanism is a component of 
this conference agreement.
  It is, however, in slightly different form than it was in the 
original Senate version, so I believe it is necessary to review the 
substance of what we are talking about, in order to more fully explain 
my support for this agreement.
  We have been told by various economists, and by the Congressional 
Budget Office, that certain benefits will accrue from balancing the 
budget. Economic activity will increase, investment in our economy will 
increase, growth will increase, and interest rates will drop due to a 
lessening of the pressures of debt. All of this will tend to bring in 
more revenue to the Federal Government.
  It is reasonable to ask what we would do with that revenue if it did 
materialize. It seemed only proper that the revenue should be returned 
to fortify and strengthen the private economy from which it came, to be 
given back to the hard-working American families who created it, rather 
than to give it to Government to spend.
  This was the origin of the provision in the Senate budget resolution. 
Estimates were that a dividend of $170 billion would be created if we 
did our work properly and balanced the budget. So we would--in the 
original Senate provision--therefore have permitted $170 billion in tax 
decreases to be enacted if we were indeed on course to balance.
  Now, let me sound a note of caution here, that note of skepticism--
that ornery Wyoming strain. It's in each of us who is from the land
 of high altitude and low multitude.

  It has not escaped my attention that even the CBO certification of an 
economic dividend would be something of a speculation. We would be 
projecting the economic benefit, and allowing ourselves to commit to 
returning it before it had all completely materialized. Future 
Congresses could ``chicken out,'' could fail to follow through with the 
spending cuts. CBO certification would not bind future Congresses. We 
would still have the chance to hand out the tax goodies, to fail to 
finish all of the spending cuts in the out-years, and make the debt 
problem worse.
  But this is where my position on the Finance Committee comes in. I 
remind my colleagues that the work of making the promise of this budget 
resolution a reality will be done in the reconciliation process. and I 
am going to work doggedly to ensure that when the Finance Committee 
makes changes in our entitlement programs to meet the terms of this 
conference report, that we lock in all of that reduced growth 
carefully. Because if we do that, we will do a great deal to slow 
future Government spending--even if future Congresses fail to hold to 
our restraints on appropriations.
  Although the conference did retain the Senate provision requiring a 
CBO certification before proceeding with revenue decreases, I was 
initially concerned upon reading that the total amount of the tax cuts 
in the conference report would be $245 billion, somewhat higher than 
the $170 billion figure which we understood to be the size of the 
dividend projected by CBO.
  However, I am satisfied that this budget conference report will 
indeed bring us to a balanced budget if we adhere to its terms, and I 
intend to help Finance Committee chairman, Bob Packwood, to do just 
that in the entitlements and tax area.
  One key is that not more than $50 billion of the tax cuts can be 
concentrated in the year 2002. If we enact more than that, then the 
budget will not be balanced in 2002, the target year. The tax cuts must 
be spread out over the 7 years properly in order to meet this 
objective, and I have every confidence that we in the finance committee 
can accomplish this.
  As we pass this conference report, I would remind my colleagues again 
that 

[[Page S 9406]]
the real tough work of balancing the budget still awaits us in the 
future. We in the Finance Committee will still have to enact the 
restraints on entitlement programs, and this and future Congresses must 
adhere to the plan for reducing annual appropriations. Only if we do 
this can we have the balanced budget and the tax relief at the same 
time.
  While no budget conference report can guarantee that this work will 
be done properly, I believe that the conference report gives us our 
best chance to do the job. The numbers are tough, realistic, 
conservative. If tax relief stimulates additional economic growth, 
speeds it to the rates assumed by President Clinton in his own budget 
proposal, then we will perhaps advance even faster toward the target of 
a balanced budget. That its a real possibility, given the tough 
assumptions used by CBO and our budget negotiators.
  In all cases, it is clear that this budget is far preferable to the 
status quo, and this is why I will vote for it. The status quo would 
permit absolutely intolerable increases in spending, particularly 
entitlement spending. We cannot afford growth rates of 10 percent per 
year in these programs. But that is what we will continue if we defeat 
this agreement.
  I therefore urge the adoption of this conference report and I yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand we have very little time on 
our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the Senator from Nebraska would yield me 5 
minutes, if he has 5 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska has 17 minutes 50 
seconds.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, we had one cancellation. Therefore, I have 
some extra time that I do not have obligated. I am very pleased to 
accommodate my friend by yielding him 5 minutes from our time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished Senator.
  Mr. President, first I want to thank Senator Exon. In spite of the 
remarks he made today about the budget of the Republicans that is 
before us today, and that is before the people of this country today, I 
believe he is a man of great respect. I happen to disagree with almost 
everything he said about this budget. But in 7 minutes I cannot go 
through point by point. I would just say it is an enormous exaggeration 
to say that this is aimed at harming rural America. Anyway we look at 
it, the only part that could even be considered is the health care 
reform package that we have here. Let me say to rural America, what we 
have done is save Medicare from bankruptcy, from going broke. And on 
Medicaid, what we have done is said let us deliver that program more 
efficiently by letting the Governors and legislators have more to say 
about how we do that.
  I can hardly believe that is going to harm rural America. We might 
even get fooled, and find that by saving Medicare we make it more 
efficient and better for seniors and by saving Medicaid, which we could 
hardly afford to pay for the next 7 years, by saving it and making it 
more responsive at the local level, we might even do better by rural 
America.
  Having said that, Mr. President, most Americans start this weekend 
celebrating a great, great American holiday. That holiday is 
Independence Day, the Fourth of July. And it is more than symbolic that 
just before Independence Day, when we treat ourselves to the joy of 
freedom, of opportunity, that these Forefathers brought to us, it is 
more than a coincidence that a budget resolution before the Senate is 
going to free America up. It is going to say to the American people 
that future generations are free to earn more money and make a better 
living. It is going to free up the interest rates where they will come 
down instead of going up. It will make America's dollar stronger here 
and in the world markets, all of which means a better life for more and 
more Americans. And it means we are not going to force the young people 
of our country to pay our bills, whether they are bills for seniors, 
bills for education, bills for veterans.
  We have asked everybody to look at this somberly and decide with us 
that we can do it better and do it for less. And for those who claim, 
as Senator Rockefeller did here on the floor in those exaggerated words 
which some master of public relations wrote up for him, but when he 
comes down and talks about all it is doing, fellow Americans, we are 
saying the budget cannot grow at 5 percent a year. It can only grow at 
3. You tell me. An American budget that is growing at 3 and instead of 
5 percent a year, starting at $1.6 trillion that we are doing something 
draconian. What those who are opposing it piece by piece are saying is 
they do not want to do anything. They would like to leave the deficit 
hang around our necks and hang around our young people's necks until it 
throttles them. They will work for the Government instead of their 
families. Is not that an interesting Fourth of July, to say bondage for 
our children instead of freedom because we do not have the guts to cut 
Federal spending?
  And for those who come to the floor and claim we are going to hurt 
our senior citizens, we are going to make this program of health care 
solvent instead of sitting by and watching it get to a point where you 
cannot even pay the bills in 7 years. And we will do it in an orderly 
manner, and they will get as good or better health care when we are 
finished reforming it than they are today. There will be less 
Government. But who today wants more Government?
  Are those on the other side who are chastising this budget with such 
strange words as ``felonies'' and ``misdemeanors,'' what would they do? 
They talk about being for a budget. The only budget I know that was 
offered on the other side had the highest tax increase in the history 
of the Nation in it. Is that how we want to balance the budget? Sure. 
They call it ``loophole closures.'' Loophole closures? The five largest 
loopholes belong to every American who has a house and it has been 
mortgaged. That is the largest of all loopholes. Then in order after 
that, for deducting health care expenses, that is the second largest. 
Is that a loophole that we ought to just close, or will not that be 
increasing taxes? How about charitable deductions? It is the fourth 
largest. It is a loophole. We can go on from there. One man's loophole 
is another man's or another woman's increase in taxes. So there is no 
plan.
  And I want to close today, as I have done one other time or two other 
times, by quoting none other than a liberal professor from Harvard 
University, Laurence Tribe. Let me close my remarks by building on a 
statement that he made when we were speaking of the balanced budget. 
Listen carefully. He said:

       Given the centrality in our revolutionary origins of the 
     precept that there should be no taxation without 
     representation, it seems especially fitting in principle that 
     we seek somehow to tie our hands so that we cannot spend our 
     children's legacy.

  That is a pretty good statement of why we should balance the budget, 
or, conversely, what we have been doing. We have been spending our 
children's legacy, future, and opportunity.
  So I say just before the Fourth of July, 220 years ago, the brave 
forefathers of this country crept onto a ship in Boston Harbor where, 
in order to protest a cruel system of taxation, they cut up boxes of 
British tea and dumped it into the water. That too was described as a 
revolutionary act, but it was one which helped to bring a better future 
for many people in America and for this young land.
  So, Mr. President, it has been my privilege to lead the Republicans 
in a spirit of that Boston Tea Party. We are saying free our young 
people from this debt. We are saying that we want to declare war on 
deficits, and we want to give deficits the death penalty for, indeed, 
they are debt for our children, ultimately death for our growth and 
prosperity. And I am proud of this budget. When we get it implemented, 
almost every American will be also.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time for the majority has expired. The 
Senator from Nebraska controls the remaining 13 minutes.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. President, I listened with great care to my good friend. We use 
that term around here, and people listening 

[[Page S 9407]]
might say: How can they be good friends when they carry on as they did? 
But we are good friends. We just happen to differ very strongly on this 
matter.
  My good friend from New Mexico, the chairman of the Budget Committee, 
whom I have worked with for 17 years, complained about some of rhetoric 
and some of the phraseology that was used by those on this side of the 
aisle, attacking it. I listened very carefully to my good friend who 
used time that I yielded to him----
  Mr. DOMENICI. For which I am most grateful.
  Mr. EXON. To make some statements that I must at least indicate that 
I do not agree with. I thought that I had maybe concluded my statement. 
But I must make note of some statements that were made by the 
distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee.
  To say that this budget saves Medicare is doubly misleading.
  So in the first instance, even by their own terms and by their own 
figures, the Republican budget will only postpone and not save the 
insolvency of the Medicare trust fund that we have heard so much about. 
They would only extend it for 3 years. That is hardly saving it. And I 
hope that everyone will understand that those are the facts and they 
are indisputable.
  Secondly, and equally as important, they seek to save this program by 
dramatically slashing benefits. If that is a savings, and if that is 
saving this program, I would hate to see what they would do if they 
really wanted to attack the program.
  The bottom line is that the average Medicare beneficiary will have to 
pay $3,345 more over the next 7 years than he or she would have spent 
without the Republican budget. That is a fact.
  I hear time and time again how this is going to save the Nation, how 
we are making sacrifices, how we have to help the younger generation. 
The younger generation, I assure you, Mr. President, is not going to be 
helped by the $245 billion tax giveaway, most of which goes to the most 
wealthy Americans, those making over $200,000. That is not a benefit to 
the younger generation.
  I simply say that were it not for the $245 billion tax cut mainly 
going to the wealthiest Americans, I am not sure that the chairman of 
the Budget Committee and myself, the ranking member, would be that far 
apart. I cannot swallow it, and I will not swallow it. I think it is 
wrong. You cannot save and protect the younger people and protect the 
older people and have a budget that works if you are going to have that 
large of a giveaway to the most affluent in our society.
  I reserve the remainder of our time which will be assigned to the 
minority leader, Senator Daschle, when he comes to the floor. In the 
meantime, I would suggest the absence of a quorum with the time charged 
to our side of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Will the Senator withhold his request?
  Mr. EXON. I withhold the request in view of the fact the majority 
leader is in the Chamber.
  How much time is remaining on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska controls 8 minutes 
and 44 seconds.
  Mr. EXON. Eight minutes and 44 seconds is being reserved for the 
minority leader.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  If no one yields time, the remaining time will be deducted from the 
minority side.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I understand most of the time has 
expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Given that, I will use the 5 minutes and whatever 
additional time I may need by calling upon my leader time for that 
purpose.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the real disappointment in this budget is 
that it did not result in a debate between Democrats and Republicans in 
the conference itself but between the right and the far right, and the 
far right won. Rather than consensus, it represents confrontation. 
Rather than accomplishment, it represents missed opportunity. Rather 
than success, it represents avoidable failure.
  For many of us, for the country, for the future, this budget 
represents disappointment. Why? Because it is more extreme in every way 
than what was originally voted on when we passed this resolution in the 
Senate--more extreme, more unfair, more unacceptable in every one of 
the criteria we laid out during the debate on this budget several weeks 
ago.
  Our Republican colleagues say that they are worried about our 
children, but what do they do? They gut the very investments that this 
Nation has made in its children.
  They say they want to fix Medicare, but what do they do? They gut the 
program and want us to believe that things will somehow get better.
  They say they want to get people off welfare, but what do they do? 
They gut the very thing which keeps people out of welfare and taxes 
them right back onto the welfare rolls. Why? Not in the name of a 
balanced budget; not in the name of deficit reduction.
  The reason they have made these choices is now there for all 
Americans to see. They want to find a way to pay for a quarter of a 
trillion dollar tax break, a tax break which in large measure goes to 
the richest people in America.
  The problem is that it does so to an even greater degree than the 
original budget resolution.
  My colleagues have already stated the facts. Medicare is cut $270 
billion, $14 billion more than the Senate bill, the largest cut by far 
in the history of the program.
  Medicaid is cut by $182 billion, $6 billion more than the Senate 
bill. Over 40 percent of the real cuts in this budget come from two 
programs: Medicare and Medicaid. This extreme budget more than doubled 
the cuts in student loans. Instead of a $4 billion reduction in the 
availability of student loans as called for in the original budget 
resolution, the figure is now $10 billion. It still asks American 
families to cough up $21 billion in new taxes. And while the Senate 
version at least--at least--had a sense-of-the-Senate provision urging 
that 90 percent of tax cuts go to families with incomes of less than 
$100,000, that disappeared completely in the extreme budget conference 
report we have before us now.
  Mr. President, we have had the opportunity to analyze just exactly 
what this budget conference report will do. We have asked a number of 
budgetary authorities to examine the figures, and this is the report 
that we have now been given:
  The average middle-class family will see $900 in loss to their 
pocketbooks over the course of this budget resolution. Those making 
under $75,000 will lose $900. And what about the wealthiest 1 percent 
of others in this country? They will see an increase of $20,000 as a 
result of this budget resolution.
  Mr. President, I think it is very important to look at how this 
breaks down in terms of the demographics in this country just to see 
who wins and who loses once this budget resolution goes into effect. 
Those who make less than $75,000, 77 percent of the American families, 
as I said, will lose $900. Those in the $75,000 to $100,000 category, 
12 percent of the population, will lose $600. Those who fall in the 
category that most Members of Congress fall in, $100,000 to $200,000, 
we will see a $200 increase in our income over the course of this 
budget resolution. That 3 percent of the population whose incomes fall 
between $200,000 and $350,000 will see a $9,000 increase in their 
incomes. And, finally, those with incomes over $350,000, 1 percent of 
the country's population, will see $20,000.
  Mr. President, the American people are catching on. They are 
beginning now to understand. The more they see, the less they like. The 
closer they look, the more concerned they get. And that has been in 
evidence with virtually every poll that has come out in the last 
several weeks. The Time/CNN poll, which is probably the most 
demonstrative of this fact: Which one of the following do you think 
should be the top priority for Congress in the next 6 months? people 
were asked, and without equivocation 42 percent said protecting 
Medicare from the deep cuts that are proposed in this budget are by far 
and away the most important thing that we could do. 

[[Page S 9408]]

  Which of the following budgets do you favor, the Republican plan or 
the President's plan, the plan proposed by President Clinton? Nineteen 
percent of those who responded said they would support the Republican 
plan; 37 percent said they would support the President's plan.
  Asked whether or not the Republican proposals to reduce Government 
programs will generally help or hurt various people, 71 percent of the 
American people said wealthy Americans are going to benefit from the 
Republican budget as it has been proposed; 57 percent of all of those 
who responded to this poll said that the middle class are going to be 
hurt and hurt badly.
  In poll after poll, Mr. President--the Gallup poll on June 5 and 6, 
the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, again, in the latter part of this 
month--each and every one have come out as unequivocally as the 
American people can through the data that has been presented to them, 
each and every American has said without equivocation, do not do this. 
You are hurting those very people that you claim to be protecting. You 
are hurting the future of this country. You are devastating the 
investments in our people, and you are doing so, as we have seen with 
this chart, to benefit the people who do not need help at all.
  Mr. President, this budget will probably pass today. And when it 
does, it will pass with great disappointment. We can do better than 
this. Democrats have proposed specific alternatives to do just that. 
The American people expect more of us than what we have before us right 
now. Extreme budgets like this do not merit our support. And many of us 
believe that we can do better. Many of us believe that when the vote is 
cast today, we have no recourse but to vote ``no'' because we know we 
can do better.
  But this is the easy part. This is the blueprint. The tough choices 
come next. When those tough choices are made, it is imperative that we 
move from the far right to the middle, away from deep cuts in Medicare, 
away from gutting education, away from tax breaks we cannot afford, and 
toward a future we all want. It is not too late, Mr. President. It is 
now past time to do the right thing. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Leaders' time was reserved; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, first I want to thank all my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle. We have had a good debate. We will be voting 
here in just a few moments, and the conference report will pass.
  I am just sitting here thinking about President Clinton and what he 
said on June 4, 1992, about balancing the budget on the Larry King 
Show. President Clinton was asked if he would submit a balanced budget 
soon. ``I would present a 5-year plan to balance the budget.'' In an 
earlier question, he said he balanced the budget 11 times in Arkansas. 
Of course, that was required by law. If we had a balanced budget 
amendment, we might have a balanced budget out here in 2 or 3 years. We 
have one in 7 years. The President started off with 5.
  Then he sent us a budget earlier this year and we had a vote on it, 
99-0, opposing the President's budget. Not a single Democrat would vote 
for it. And then in June the President had a 10-year plan. I mean, if 5 
years was too painful and 7 years was too painful, let us try 10 years. 
If it is too painful, we will try 12 years, 15 years, 20 years. Before 
long it does not make any sense at all.
  So I want to congratulate my colleagues and my colleagues in the 
House for passing the conference report and what I believe will happen 
here in a few moments. I listened to my friend from New Mexico, Senator 
Domenici, talk about July 4th and Independence Day, to gather and 
celebrate our independence and our freedom. And I really believe, 
though maybe not every American will talk about the budget resolution 
on July 4th; I am not certain many will unless they are having a 
problem, we will talk about it--it is historic--because it is a little 
bit unexpected, I assume, in some cases, but it is going to bring about 
more freedom and more independence for all Americans. And the first 
freedom is going to be freedom from crushing debt.
  The Senator from New Mexico closed his debate by talking about the 
children and the grandchildren. And I think most people are concerned 
about that. Let me share with you some very wise words, which I will 
quote:

       If the nation is living within its income, its credit is 
     good. If, in some crisis, it lives beyond its income for a 
     year or two, it can usually borrow temporarily at reasonable 
     rates. But if, like a spendthrift, it throws discretion to 
     the wind, and is willing to make no sacrifice at all in 
     spending . . . if it extends its taxing to the limit of the 
     people's power to pay . . . if it continues to pile up 
     deficits, then it is on the road to bankruptcy.

  Now, those are not the words of this Senator. They are not the words 
of the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, or the chairman of 
the House Budget Committee, Congressman Kasich. They are instead the 
words spoken 62 years ago by President Franklin Roosevelt. So this is 
not something new that cropped up here in the last few years. It has 
been a concern for a long, long time.
  He was absolutely right. So we have thrown discretion to the winds. 
We have had more spending, more taxes, more spending, more taxes. 
President Clinton gave us the biggest tax increase in the history of 
the world in 1993 and is proud of it.
  So I suggest there is just a different philosophy on that side of the 
aisle: Do not touch any spending; if you have a problem, raise taxes. 
They believe it, and that is probably the way it ought to be.
  We have a different philosophy, and we believe it. We believe taxes 
have been extended to the limits of Americans' power to pay. We have 
the deficit about as high as we can pile it, and we are well down the 
road to bankruptcy, as Roosevelt predicted 62 years ago, unless we 
begin to change directions, and that is precisely what we are doing 
today. We are going to change directions, avoid bankruptcy, and set a 
course for a balanced budget by the year 2002. Here it is right on this 
chart.
  President Clinton's budget has deficits as far as the eye can see in 
the range of $200 billion, his budget proposed June 10. Our budget, the 
Republican budget: Balanced by the year 2002. We do it without cooking 
the books, without smoke and mirrors, without throwing seniors, 
children, and the less fortunate out on the street, though it has been 
suggested by some here today that we are heartless, we lack compassion, 
we do not care about anybody.
  We do it by making tough decisions, by slowing the rate of growth of 
Federal spending. Yes, it eliminates some of the bureaucracies, and a 
few others will have to learn to make do with less than they receive 
now. But the vast majority will actually be receiving increases, just 
not as much as they have been accustomed to. The rate of growth is 
going to be slowed, as most Americans would suggest we should do.
  We are going to achieve about $894 billion through reductions in 
Government spending and savings. Still, Government spending will 
increase $1.5 trillion this year to $1.876 trillion in the year 2002, 
as the Senator from New Mexico also indicated just a few moments ago.
  Let me repeat those numbers, because it is going to continue to grow: 
From $1.5 trillion this year to $1.876 trillion in the year 2002. Now, 
that may come as a surprise to some who may have believed what they 
have been hearing from some on the other side of the aisle.
  If you believe what they said, you would think the Republicans are 
shutting down the entire Government once and for all and every Federal 
program, taking money from education, taking money from Medicare, 
taking money from Medicaid, taking money from rural America. That is 
not the truth. That is not accurate.
  It is not what we proposed. I do not care how often they repeat it, 
repeat it, and repeat it, and how often the media picks it up, picks it 
up, picks it up, and spins it. It is not going to sell with the 
American people.
  So freedom from crushing debt, number one; freedom from excessive 
taxation, number two.
  On this Independence Day, the American people can also celebrate the 
fact they will have the freedom to save and spend more of their hard-
earned money as they see fit. Whoever said the Government had a 
monopoly on taxpayers' 

[[Page S 9409]]
money, on what you make, whether you are a wage earner or in some other 
business or some other vocation?
  So we have a $245 billion tax relief package. The House wanted more. 
This was the figure we agreed upon. It is large enough to accommodate 
the family tax credit, which the Presiding Officer has been so 
interested in in the past several years when he was in the House and 
also now in the Senate.
  We believe the American families are overtaxed. Maybe the Democrats 
do not believe that, and they certainly have every right to say that 
everywhere they go, ``You are not taxed enough; we want to tax you some 
more.''
  We believe our tax system should encourage rather than discourage 
investment in job creation. We believe we ought to overhaul the tax 
system. So we have a tax commission headed by our former colleague, 
Jack Kemp, to talk about economic growth and tax reform. They will 
report to the Speaker and majority leader later this year. It is a 15-
member commission.
  So is it wrong to have $245 billion in tax relief for overtaxed 
Americans? I do not believe so.
  Marriage penalty relief, opportunity to increase savings and 
investment, capital gains rate reduction, and I do not believe the 
Democrats will oppose if we have some estate tax relief for small 
family-held businesses and farms and ranches across America where if 
somebody dies, the Government ends up with half the estate. We want to 
correct that. So it seems to me that we are on the right track.
  They do not take effect unless and until the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office certifies that we are absolutely on the 
path to a budget that is balanced in the year 2002. That is the safety 
valve; that is the safety valve. They do not take effect until that has 
been certified, as the chairman has pointed out time after time.
  So freedom from crushing debt, freedom from excessive taxation, 
freedom from big Government. We are going to make the Government leaner 
and more efficient and more cost-effective and return more power to the 
States and the communities and our other citizens.
  I think also we ought to point out it is going to be freedom from 
worries of Medicare survival. I was on the 1983 Social Security 
Commission, a Commission appointed by Senator Howard Baker, the 
majority leader at that time; by Ronald Reagan, a Republican President; 
by Tip O'Neill, a Democratic Speaker of the House. Social Security was 
on the verge of bankruptcy. We had a bipartisan Commission. We rescued 
Social Security, and it is going to be in good shape, at least until 
the year 2020 and maybe beyond.
  We want to do the same with Medicare, because if it goes bankrupt, 
you cannot pay part A or part B, you cannot pay the doctor, you cannot 
pay the hospital in about 5 or 6 years. We have an obligation to 
America's seniors to correct it.
  We have had a lot of political rhetoric on this floor, but it is less 
than somewhat since President Clinton's budget proposal acknowledged 
that we were right; we must slow the rate of growth of Medicare if we 
are going to protect, preserve, and improve it.
  There are always those who try to scare the American seniors, always 
those who engage in class warfare, always those who say we are going to 
slash Medicare. What are they going to do? What are all those people 
out trying to scare America's senior citizens going to do? Nothing. 
What are they going to do in 4 or 5 years when we cannot pay the 
hospital bill or the doctor bill of some senior in Minnesota, Kansas, 
New Mexico, or wherever in America?
  So it seems to me we are on the right track. We are trying to avoid 
the bankruptcy of Medicare. We are not going to allow Medicare to go 
bankrupt. We are not going to allow Medicare to be cut to the bone. 
Indeed, under this Medicare proposal in our budget, we are going to 
increase beneficiary spending from $4,860 a year to $6,732 by the year 
2002--a big increase.
  Finally, I think what we are doing here in a broad way is 
safeguarding our freedom and independence.
  I hope that under this resolution--and this is just the start; the 
hard part comes after we pass the resolution--Americans will also know 
that their freedom and independence, which was purchased by the 
sacrifice of countless Americans who risked and lost their lives, will 
remain secure. That is what this debate is all about: The future of 
America, going into the next century in the year 2002. This budget 
resolution maintains our commitment to national security second to 
none.
  So I am pleased with the work that has been done by the budget 
conferees and by the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee and the 
House Budget Committee.
  There is a saying that has been around about as long as America has. 
There are two ways to get to the top of an oak tree: One is to climb 
and the other is to find an acorn and sit on it and it will grow into a 
tree some day and you will be up on top.
  We are going to do it the first way. We have been sitting on the 
acorn too long in this Congress hoping that somehow our deficits could 
be reduced and a balanced budget would be magically sprouted and we 
would be sitting on top of the world. Americans for a long time, 
because they have been ahead of us, hoped that we would find a 
different course. We chose a different course--a balanced budget--to 
get to the top by climbing the tree, and there is a lot of climbing 
left to do.
  Mr. President, let me salute Senator Domenici for his tireless 
efforts in making this moment possible. He has the toughest job around 
here. The taxpayers of America have no better friend than the senior 
Senator from New Mexico.
  I also want to thank the Senate budget conferees for their dedication 
and hard work: Senators Brown, Gorton, Grassley, Gregg, Lott, and 
Nickles, and thanks as well to Speaker Gingrich and House Budget 
Committee chairman John Kasich and their conferees, because this has 
been a one-party effort. The other party did not want to participate. 
They like to raise taxes. They do not want to reduce the rate of growth 
of spending anywhere, and that is precisely what we did.
  So I believe we have reached the right result. It is not perfect. A 
lot of hard work is left, but we are ready for it. I hope that 
everybody will vote aye on the conference report.
                             closing thanks

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, there are a number of people I want to 
briefly thank for bringing this year's budget resolution to completion.
  We all know, however, that this is not the end of the budget 
process--it is just the first step. But a very critical and important 
first step.
  Let me first begin by thanking my friend and leader, Bob Dole and the 
Republican Conference Chairman Senator Cochran for allowing me to serve 
as chairman of the Budget Committee this year.
  To my fellow Senate Budget Committee members--and particularly the 
ranking member, Senator Exon--thank you for the long hours we spent 
together earlier this year in hearings, debate, and markups.
  Not too many Senators realize that the Budget Committee also marked 
up and reported unfunded mandates and line-item veto legislation while 
also working on the budget. The committee has been busy.
  I want to pay particular thanks to three members of the Budget 
Committee--Senators Brown, Gorton, and Gregg. Thank you for chairing 
three critical working groups earlier this year on discretionary, 
entitlement, and privatization issues.
  Those groups' input was critical to the design of the resolution.
  Let me also thank the three freshmen of the Budget Committee--
Senators Abraham, Snowe, and Frist. I cannot remember a time when 
freshmen on the Budget Committee were more active--in field hearings, 
participation, and just plain old input into the design of a 
resolution.
  Finally, behind the scenes throughout has been the committee's 
staff--both majority and minority. They have worked tirelessly for the 
past 6 months to bring us to this conclusion today. But their work is 
not finished. They now must help to oversee that the resolution is 
implemented and enforced.
  There are a number of staff that should receive special recognition. 
I will insert into the Record a list of the committee staff. While 
small, the staff has been very effective in their work product and 
helping us as Senators do our job better.

[[Page S 9410]]

  Let me give special recognition to Austin Smythe and Jennifer Smith, 
the committee's counsels, for their hard work in getting this product 
drafted and before the two Houses today. There is no question that 
without their dedication this product would never have been possible.
  I want to also pay special tribute to Anne Miller, without her hard, 
consistent, and careful scrutiny of the numbers this product also would 
never have been possible.
  Thanks to Cheri Reidy, Denise Ramonas, and Carol McGuire on taxes and 
appropriations crosswalks.
  Special thanks to Peter Taylor who has been the chief economist on 
the committee for the last few years. Peter will be leaving to join the 
Joint Committee on Taxation after the recess.
  Thanks to Keith Hennessey for all his work on Medicare and Medicaid, 
and Ricardo Rel on agriculture issues.
  Thanks to Brian Riley, Mike Ruffner, Lisa Cieplak, and Jim Hern for 
the work on transportation, welfare, education, and housing issues.
  Thanks to Roy Phillips and Greg Vuksich for their continued work on 
defense and foreign affairs funding issues.
  Behind them all, getting the briefing books put together and
   copies, copies, copies--stand Christy Dunn, Andrea Gatta, Mieko 
Nakabayashi, Karen Bilton, and Beth Wallis.
  And finally, we all need our communications people and I have one of 
the best in Bob Stevenson and his excellent assistant, Melissa 
Longoria.
  Trying to keep all these people coordinated has been the job of my 
staff director--Bill Hoagland.
  Thank you all. Now get back to work and implement it.
                Senate Budget Committee Republican Staff
       Bill Hoagland, Majority Staff Director.
       Carole McGuire, Assistant Staff Director.
       Austin Smythe, Assistant Staff Director.
       Anne Miller, Budget Review.
       Cheri Riedy, Sr. Analyst for Budget Review.
       Jennifer Smith, Counsel.
       Jim Hearn, Sr. Analyst for Government Finance and 
     Management.
       Lisa Cieplak, Sr. Analyst for Education, Social Service & 
     Justice.
       Mike Ruffner, Analyst for Income Security and Veterans.
       Keith Hennessey, Economist for Social Security and Health.
       Ricardo Rel, Sr. Analyst for Agriculture and Natural 
     Resources.
       Peter Taylor, Economist.
       Brian Riley, Sr. Analyst for Transportation and Science.
       Roy Phillips, Sr. Analyst for Defense.
       Denise Ramonas, General Counsel.
       Brian Benczkowski, Asst. to General Counsel.
       Greg Vuksich, Sr. Analyst for International Relations.
       Bob Stevenson, Communications Director.
       Melissa Longoria, Asst. to Communications Director.
       Christy Dunn, Asst. to Staff Director.
       Andrea Gatta, Staff Assistant.
       Karen Bilton, Staff Assistant.
       Beth Wallis, Staff Assistant.
       Mieko Nakabayashi, Staff Assistant.

  Mr. President, even though we are under a time constraint, I want to 
say thank you, once again, to one person. There are many, but I have to 
tell you, we would not be here if it were not for the staff of the 
majority of the U.S. Senate. Mr. Hoagland, we thank you. Every member 
of this institution thanks you. Anybody that has dealt with you in this 
arena thanks you. You know more than anyone around, and your 
temperament and approach has been marvelous.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I echo what has been said. I echo my thanks 
to Bill Hoagland and the great staff on the Republican side on this 
matter. They worked very hard. We are also indebted to Bill Dauster, 
who is over here, and the members of his staff. Both staffs did a 
tremendous job. I think the chairman of the committee would agree.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference 
report accompanying House Concurrent Resolution 67.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 46, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 296 Leg.]
                                YEAS--54
     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.

                          ____________________